Split from "A question for some Protestants who try to proselytize Catholics": Are Catholic priests "Forbidden to Marry?"

[wmscott]

Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” NJKV

That says to me, that if a man divorces his wife and remarries, he commits adultery. The exception is sexual immorality. It doesn’t make sense for Jesus to give an exception if the man commits adultery while married and lets the man off the hock by allowing divorce. Context and understanding what is logical helps here.

In the eyes of God/Jesus a divorced woman is married so to marry her it would be adultery.

Just so I follow you correctly, are you saying that in the case of adultry, divorce is OK?

 

[Esdra]

No, Doki, I don’t disagree with Paul. I disagree with your interpretation of Paul. Paul said “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. He did NOT say " a person will soon die if they don’t gratify their sexual passions". I assure you, this will not happen. I work in a facility with incarcerated males, and many of them burn with sexual passion. None of them die from it. Many of them abstain from sexual activity.

Paul says “IF they cannot exercise self control”. As we will agree, self control is one of the fruits of the Spirit. If one is weak in faith, or young in the faith, one may have insufficient fruit of the Spirit to govern their passions in a mature manner. In this case, Paul makes a concession that they marry.

However, for those in spiritual formation for the priesthood, one of the basic requirements to serve as a priest is the fruit of the Spirit, especially self control. This does not only apply in matters of sexual passion, but in all areas.

If a person cannot exercise self control, they are not suited for the priesthood. You will find this principle in the letters to Tim and Titus you reference, even extended that they should have control over [SIGN]their household[/SIGN] as well.

Hi,

have I read correctly? Paul wrote to Tim and Titus, who were bishops (=todays priests/pastors) that they should have control over their household?
Do you know what a household is? A household is a family with a wife and (normally) children.
So Paul wrote to a bishop that he should have control over his household!
He didn’t write that he can’t be a part of the clergy because he doesn’t have the fruit of the Spirit called self control (which is according to you teh celibacy!) - No, on the contrary!
.
So we have a problem here. The CC teaches that it’s one of the basic requirements of the clergy to have the spiritual fruit of self control which is, at least in your understanding, celibacy.

But Paul doesn’t write: If you don’t have the spiritual fruit of self control (this means that you are willing to live in celibacy to minister) you are not allowed to be a priest, decon or bishop (the most common Ancient Christian clergy titles).

But he writes:

"1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.
2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self- controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
**4 **He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.
5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) " (1 Tim 3:2-5; NIV)

An overseer in this case is, as far as I know, a today priest (or pastor). Do you see anywhere that Paul wrote that he has to live in celibacy?

Think about it.

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[wmscott]

And it may not be as funny as you think it is.

Yes it was, most are seeing the same argument from you over and over, and you expecting a different result from whoever tries to explain it to you. The point is that you are expecting practicing and informed Catholics to abandon their beliefs based on just your opinion alone and nothing more. Sure you cite Sacred Scripture, but that is mostly out of context.

 

[Esdra]

Just so I follow you correctly, are you saying that in the case of adultry, divorce is OK?

If I am a man and she commits adultry it is okay, according to Jesus in this Verse, to get divorced.

Esdra

 

[jmcrae]

If I am a man and she commits adultry it is okay, according to Jesus in this Verse, to get divorced.

Esdra

No, it’s not. “For the cause of immorality” has nothing to do with anyone’s behaviour after the wedding (otherwise, what’s up with the vow of “for better or for worse, until death us do part”? “For worse” surely includes any bad behaviour on the part of the spouse.)

Rather, it refers to whether the marriage itself was lawfully contracted - for example, that they were not brother and sister at the time of the wedding, and it is a first marriage (ie: a non-adulterous marriage) for both of them.

 

[wmscott]

Hi,

have I read correctly? Paul wrote to Tim and Titus, who were bishops (=todays priests/pastors) that they should have control over their household?
Do you know what a household is? A household is a family with a wife and (normally) children.
So Paul wrote to a bishop that he should have control over his household!
He didn’t write that he can’t be a part of the clergy because he doesn’t have the fruit of the Spirit called self control (which is according to you teh celibacy!) - No, on the contrary!
.
So we have a problem here. The CC teaches that it’s one of the basic requirements of the clergy to have the spiritual fruit of self control which is, at least in your understanding, celibacy.

But Paul doesn’t write: If you don’t have the spiritual fruit of self control (this means that you are willing to live in celibacy to minister) you are not allowed to be a priest, decon or bishop (the most common Ancient Christian clergy titles).

But he writes:

"1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.
2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self- controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
**4 **He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.
5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) " (1 Tim 3:2-5; NIV)

An overseer in this case is, as far as I know, a today priest (or pastor). Do you see anywhere that Paul wrote that he has to live in celibacy?

Think about it.

In Christ,
Esdra

Esdra, if you have the time, please read what I posted to Dokimas at this **LINK **posts 458, 459, & 460. Thanks

 

[wmscott]

No, it’s not. “For the cause of immorality” has nothing to do with anyone’s behaviour after the wedding (otherwise, what’s up with the vow of “for better or for worse, until death us do part”? “For worse” surely includes any bad behaviour on the part of the spouse.)

Rather, it refers to whether the marriage itself was lawfully contracted - for example, that they were not brother and sister at the time of the wedding, and it is a first marriage (ie: a non-adulterous marriage) for both of them.

And more to add to your point…

NAB

Mark 10:2-9 The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

Footnotes:
[2-9] In the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, Jesus declares that the law of Moses permitted divorce (Deut 24:1) only because of the hardness of your hearts (Mark 10:4-5). In citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 Jesus proclaims permanence to be the divine intent from the beginning concerning human marriage (Mark 10:6-8). He reaffirms this with the declaration that what God has joined together, no human being must separate (Mark 10:9). See further the notes on Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9.

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): 7 a wife should not separate from her husband --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Footnotes:
[10-11] (Not I, but the Lord): Paul reminds the married of Jesus’ principle of nonseparation (Mark 10:9). This is one of his rare specific references to the teaching of Jesus.

Matthew 5:31-32 "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery

Footnote:
[31-32] See Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary

Ver. 9. And I say to you. It is worthy of remark, that in the parallel texts, St. Mark x. 2. and St. Luke xvi. 18. and St. Paul to Corinthians vii. 10. omit the exception of fornication; and also that St. Matthew himself omits it in the second part of the verse; and says absolutely, that he who shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. It perhaps crept in here from chap. v. 32, where it is found in a phrase very similar to this, but which expresses a case widely different. Divorce is in no case admitted but in that of adultery. This is what Christ teaches in chap. v. 32, and to this the exception is referred, marked in the two texts. But in this very case the separated parties cannot contract a second marriage without again committing adultery, as we must infer, from a comparison of this text with the parallel texts of St. Mark and St. Luke. (Bible de Vence) — If we did not understand it in this manner, the case of the adulteress would be preferable to the case of her who should be put away without any crime of her own; as in this supposition, the former would be allowed to marry again, which the latter would not be allowed. (Tirinus) — St. Augustine is very explicit on this subject. See lib. 11. de adult conjug. chap. xxi. xxii. xxiv. — St. Jerome, in his high commendation of the noble matron, Fabiola, says of her: “that though she was the innocent party, for the unlawful act of marrying again, she did public penance.” (In Epitaph. Fabiolæ.) — This universally received doctrine of the Catholic Church was confirmed in the general council of Trent. (Session xxiv. canon 6.)

 

[Esdra]

Esdra, if you have the time, please read what I posted to Dokimas at this **LINK **posts 458, 459, & 460. Thanks

Hi

I don’t have the time know ( it is already 10:46 pm here, and I have to get up at 5 am tomorrow :/) to read your posts completely through, so I only skimmed it through.

Well, it has partially to do with my thread but doesn’t answer it completely I guess…

Anyway, I need to go to bed now.

Gn8 everyone.

May the glory and peace of our Lord be with all of you.

Esdra

 

[tqualey]

Sooooooooooooo… ‘real progress’ is (are) Bible verses…?

You know… that makes no sense at all. it could be that your ultra cryptic response are really not helping you explain your position. “I’ll stick with Paul…” sounds great - except when Paul defends the Eurcharist as the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ and those who profane it are guilty of the Blood of Christ (1Cor 11:27). Then there is quick departure from Paul’s preaching!

The issue, at least as I appreciate it, deal with those who voluntarily sacrifice the Gift of Sex within the context of marriage for the greater good of serving God as a Catholic Priest (or religious brother or sister with a vow of chastity). No one forced anyone to accept this higher calling - but, for those who choose to do so, they further the work of Christ on earth.

This issue - choosing celebicy (not to marry) while remaining chaste (no sexual activity) is a special calling and not to be minimized. It is not for everyone (“Let him take it who can…”) but, it is for some to freely take. And, their taking it furthers the way God has chosen to bestow Grace on those who avail themselves of His Sacraments.

God bless

Have you missed the Scriptures I often post that seem to say what I believe?

Of the 8 posts I just made, at least 3 included Bible verses.

 

[Dokimas]

No, Doki, I don’t disagree with Paul. I disagree with your interpretation of Paul. Paul said “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. He did NOT say " a person will soon die if they don’t gratify their sexual passions". I assure you, this will not happen. I work in a facility with incarcerated males, and many of them burn with sexual passion. None of them die from it. Many of them abstain from sexual activity.

Here’s where I continue to have problems communication with you. It’s also why I say we make NO progress. At best, YOU MISSTATE what I’ve said. I did NOT say that anyone will die for lack of sex.

BTW, before you make any claims about sex and health, you may want to ‘goggle’ it and see what you find. There are some doctors that have concluded that there may be a correlation between lack of sex and prostrate cancer.

 

[Dokimas]

You are not really falling for this drivel, are you Doki? This is one of the greatest lies of the culture of death in which we live.

Do you really think that a spouse not having sex must preciptiate murder on the part of the one denied? I cant even believe you brought this up at all.

You must have very little faith in the HS to be able to keep His people chaste, and a lot of faith in the sexual urge being stronger than the HS.

I think that most people living under the power of the culture of death believe the sex drive is stronger than God, come to think of it.

Here we go again!!! Do you see the highlighed word from your quote? Where did you come up with that???

When you do this, it diminishes your whole post and point for many of us. I, for one, have a tough time taking you seriously when you do blatenly misrepresent what I say. If you can’t get it correct what I say, how can you get it straight what the CC teaches?

If one person was murdered, it proves my point. BTW, I wasn’t making a point, I was responding to carcastic remarks.

 

[Dokimas]

Just so I follow you correctly, are you saying that in the case of adultry, divorce is OK?

I’m saying that in the verse quoted, Jesus says there’s one reason He permits divorce, when a spouse is unfaithful.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes it was, most are seeing the same argument from you over and over, and you expecting a different result from whoever tries to explain it to you. The point is that you are expecting practicing and informed Catholics to abandon their beliefs based on just your opinion alone and nothing more. Sure you cite Sacred Scripture, but that is mostly out of context.

Thanks for your opinion.

Laugh it up if you want.

 

[PRmerger]

This means that it should be the priest’s free choice to be in celibacy or to marry.
I also think that all the things with (child) abuse could have been prevented by this rule above.

I wonder what all the married Episcopal priests and married Protestant clergy who’ve abused children use for their excuse. Clearly, they enjoy the marital embrace yet it did not prevent them from abusing children.

And I wonder what married people who commit adultery use for their excuse?

Perhaps we ought to also liberalize the marriage fidelity rule. I wonder, would it cut down on cheating spouses if they were allowed to fulfill their burning desire?

(Yep, folks, I’m pointing out the absurdity of the argument, “If they were allowed to have sex they wouldn’t break their vows”)

 

[PRmerger]

[SIGN1]That is my #! pet peeve on the CAFs!![/SIGN1]–ex-Catholics (usually accompanied by these qualifiers: “altar server”, "12 years of Catholic schooling with nuns!’) who are adamantine that some whacky belief they’re professing was taught by the CC. And the fact that they’re an ex-Catholic means that, by golly, they’re speaking with authority.

And just to go off on a tangent …

my #2 pet peeve on the CAFs is…

Phantom posters who post something provocative and then never return.
Or they return days later without addressing the rebuttal and just continue onwards with nary a comment about their original post.

<sigh!> I get that not everyone logs in daily. And I get that it’s hard to keep up.

But, it is quite unsatisfying to post a rebuttal and not receive any feedback.

 

[PRmerger]

In the eyes of God/Jesus a divorced woman is married so to marry her it would be adultery.

But what if she’s divorced because her husband committed adultery?

 

[Dokimas]

But what if she’s divorced because her husband committed adultery?

What do you think Jesus would say to her?

I’ll give you a hint to what I think: Matthew 19:9 & Galatians 3:28

 

[PRmerger]

What do you think Jesus would say to her?

I’ll give you a hint to what I think: Matthew 19:9 & Galatians 3:28

I’m okay with veering off on tangents, but please answer my question first, Doki.

If she’s divorced because her husband committed adultery, why would Jesus say: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;

Why would it be adultery if it’s ok to divorce?

 

[Dokimas]

I’m okay with veering off on tangents, but please answer my question first, Doki.

If she’s divorced because her husband committed adultery, why would Jesus say: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;

Why would it be adultery if it’s ok to divorce?

No tangent.

Your question doesn’t make sense. I can’t answer it.

 

[PRmerger]

BTW, you are not in agreement with Paul who wrote:

1Co 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I give a hearty “amen!” to the above verse, Doki.

If a man cannot exercise self control, he ought not be a priest.